args

CON

• CON

  If I actually made an argument in the first round I...

  Show full argument

  Feminism

  So it isn't a "high ground" thing. You are the pro therefor it is up to you to make a claim. You see how it goes by rounds? If I actually made an argument in the first round I would've already been in the lead and you'd have to play catch up the whole time. I didn't take the easy win. You're welcome. So I tend to agree with you're definition of feminism. I think if you frame feminism like that most people would call themselves feminists. It sounds to me like you should have asked to argue with a misandrists because most of your argument is geared towards clarifying a difference which is interesting and worth talking about but not what your title implies. What your title implies is that you are part of a modern feminist movement that would support things like equity over equality. Women have the same rights as men in the U. S so for you to be promoting classic feminism isn't anything people take issue with. It is the status quo. If you want to talk about the gender pay gap we can but it isn't a symptom of oppression. More women choose to go into fields that pay less. The difference between pay in each field is nominal. It's really a non-issue because we aren't going to force people into fields they don't want to do. We definitely aren't going to artificially inflate other fields for the sake of equity. So the real question is still: what is your claim? As a modern feminist what change are you actually promoting?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/35/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.13

    feminism: 24.13

    conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)

    premises: 8.71 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is necessary

  Sources My opponent may not be fine with my source, but I accept hers. I accept it because it proves MY point. If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then feminism is not necessary, because we used to live without it. Necessary vs. Should AGAIN, we're not debating if we should have feminism, we're debating if feminism is necessary. If my opponent wanted to debate if it should be on implemented, she should have crafted a different resolution. Definition of "necessary" My opponent did not argue with the definition of "necessary", so I can only presume she agrees with it. With this in mind, let's go over it again so I can build a foundation for my rebuttal: necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite Rebuttal: My opponent gave me a litany of issues, and asked me if I thought any of them were necessary. Well, to answer her question, we need to ask if they're "essential, indispensable, or requisite" 13th amendment? No. The Declaration? Nope. Abortion ban? Negative. Empowerment, respect, identity? Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I support all of those things, but they're not necessary. We COULD live in a world without freedom, respect, and identity. Therefore, feminism is NOT necessary.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-necessary/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.12

    feminism: 24.12

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.73 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.82)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  Feminism would be looked at as much more positive if they...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is wrong

  It's good to see you do not hate feminism because you are a misogynist. But there is one tiny thing in feminism that in itself is not wrong: Men and women having equal rights and oppertunities. The only thing is that the men's side of it is often ignored. But the fact that over the centuries women have been treated as nothing more than objects and property of men to be disposed of at any time gives them a reason to feel victimized. It is easier for men to be against feminism because over the years society has favored, respected and raised them to idols while women were crushed down, oppressed, disrespected and treated as nothing more than baby machines. Feminism would be looked at as much more positive if they would focus more on men's problems but i think the thing people forget its that sometimes when they reject feminism, the embrace masculism. and i think masculism is just as hypocritical ad feminism, some masculists want to put women down and raise men up once more and what makes that anymore right than vice versa? masculists want women to give up their jobs and be the traditional housewife and bear and take care of their children but get angry when custody goes to the mother if they divorce and go on a rant about it. How is any of this right? The reason i am not a feminist is because even when the feminist movement first started women were encouraged to be like men and dress like men which i don't think is right. women should not have to give up their feminimity to have careers. But other than that, so long as feminists are fighting for men's rights just as much as women's rights and are not rejecting their feminimity to and be masculine, i have no problem with feminism

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-wrong/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.10

    feminism: 24.10

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.72 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.82)

    sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  In major cases of divorce, men pay alimony. ... In major...

  Show full argument

  Feminism

  What feminism has become is a synonym for man hating. In major cases of divorce, men pay alimony. In major cases, for the same crime, a woman on average, will be handed a lower sentencing. How is this fair??? Please respond with only facts and generalizations based upon those facts.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/22/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.03

    feminism: 24.03

    conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)

    premises: 8.73 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.87 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  If she is being payed equally then she will be content....

  Show full argument

  Feminism is not equality

  It's my pleasure to debate you. 1) Establishing the definition of feminism From Wiktionary {1} Noun feminism (countable and uncountable, plural feminisms) 1. (obsolete) The state of being feminine; femininity. [from 1851; less common after 1895] Q95; 2. A social theory or political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life. From Encyclopedia Britannica {2} Feminism, the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women"s rights and interests. From Merriam Webster {3} Definition of feminism 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests 2) Conclusions from definition As you can clearly see, equality is inherent to the definition of feminism. If someone violates the tenets of feminism, i.e., equality of sexes, it is not the definition of the word that is compromised, but merely the integrity as a feminist of the individual that violates it. A simple syllogism suffices to demonstrate this: Belief in God and Jesus Christ makes one Christian "Man A" believes in God and Jesus Christ "Man A" is a Christian And of course, the contrary holds true as well: Disbelief in God and Jesus Christ makes one non-Christian "Man B" doesn't believe in God "Man B" is not a Christian No one would argue that if a man who claims to be Christian denounces the existence of God, Christians no longer believe in God. That man simply stops being a Christian. This same logic will apply to feminism as well. Belief in the equality of sexes makes one feminist "Woman A" believes women are superior to men "Woman A" is not a feminist Therefore your premise is flawed, in that the conduct you described would not be the conduct of feminists. 3) Refutation of opponent's points Of the three points my opponent makes, none actually support his premise that feminism is not equality, as they are all sensationalist promulgations with no facts to support them. You claim some women hate all men and wish they were all dead. This is probably true, as there are many women in the world, and it's more likely than not that at least one of them feels this way. However, the same applies to men as well, and there is likely at least one man that wishes all women were dead. Neither of these points say anything about either group as a whole, as those individuals have no mandate to speak for those collective bodies, whether the body in question is man, woman, or feminism. The claim about the wage gape has no bearing on my argument. If a (female)feminist is being payed less for the same work as a man, she would no doubt be upset and wish to rectify the situation. If she is being payed equally then she will be content. As far as employment goes, women work in every profession mentioned by my opponent. I consider these three points I've made so far as self-evident, and believe they require no substantiation. Pro's testament that there are also female rapists is not salient to the discussion. It is also worth noting that the two sentences in conjunction in his second paragraph seem to imply that men are being raped by women in prisons. The is completely untrue, and the source used to support it is a study on men being raped by other men in prison. Of course in the U.S., the world leader in incarceration rates{4}, this couldn't possibly happen as prisons are gender segregated. The second source provided by my opponent is just a blog reflecting the opinions of one who is not an authority on the subject, and is not credible for sourcing. 4) Summary In summary I would like to leave a quote that bolsters my two avenues of argument (definition of feminism, poor sourcing and presentation from my opponent). "Feminism is an interesting word. It suffers from being an ""ism". First, people make the assumption that feminism is only for women. Second, people mistake feminism for an ideology, something you either believe in or not, and third, many people still view feminists as dogmatic or dangerous. The irony is that these stereotypes are exactly what anti-feminists have wanted us to believe, since the suffrage movement began in the 19th century. As I see it, true feminism is simply to stand up for equality. In the words of Gloria Steinem, "a feminist is anyone who recognises(sic) the equality and full humanity of women and men." Where does this come from you ask? It is an excerpt from an article titled "Equality isn't just a women's issue, it's a human one", written by Carlos Moedas. The interesting thing about this is that I am not the one who introduced this article to the debate. This is a direct excerpt from the article linked to by Pro's third source, which contradicts his own argument, and strongly supports mine. {1} https://en.wiktionary.org... {2} https://www.britannica.com... {3} https://www.merriam-webster.com... {4} https://en.wikipedia.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-not-equality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.02

    feminism: 24.02

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.64 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.80)

    sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  In some places men have fewer rights, while in other...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is for equality

  So, are you agreeing that feminism isn't promoting equality? Cause that is my (con) stand. Feminism as such has become the belief that women should be made superior to men. This is against gender equality. In some places men have fewer rights, while in other places women have rights but they don't know about it/ don't exercise it. But feminism or menism isn't the solution. We must make a stand for equality, liberty and freedom, and judge each other on our capabilities rather than our gender, race, religion or any other nonessential detail.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-for-equality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.95

    feminism: 23.95

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.57 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 1.96 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  However, there is one point the opponent made that I have...

  Show full argument

  Feminism

  Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, my argument for this round will be shorter in length, and I will mostly expand on points I have already made. However, there is one point the opponent made that I have not elaborated on enough. My opponent says that feminism is called what it is because, in history, there have been more instances of inequality towards men than women. This is true. However, now I believe society is equal, so there is no need for feminism. Instead, I think we need to pay attention to the larger collection of human problems. Starvation, sicknesses, oppression of women IN THE MIDDLE EAST, murder, and all of the other issues humanity faces should be a priority. Not focusing on a problem that does not even exist. I meant men for my third argument. Typo. But other than that, my argument stands strong. I am curious as to why my opponent forfeited the last round. Was it because they could not provide me with statistics? I wonder if anybody in the comments can. Regardless, thank you for reading.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.89

    feminism: 23.89

    conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)

    premises: 8.51 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  Given Pro's just attempted to dump a whole lot of...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is stupid

  Given Pro's just attempted to dump a whole lot of arguments on me without any real justification or logical reasoning as a backup for this, I'll have to restrict myself to rebuttal this round and put forth substantitive next round. My substantitive should rest mostly upon the rebuttal I do this round anyway. >1. Feminism is only recognizable in the First World countries where feminism is no longer needed. This argument is entirely circular - it assumes that feminism is no longer needed in order to attempt to prove it isn't needed any longer. Logically inconsistent. >2. Feminism rarely addresses issue that men also face This is more an issue with Pro's weak definition of this motion more than anything, because it seems like Pro has defined feminism as the type of ideology expressed by the "SJWs get destroyed" type youtube videos which this vacuous idiocy of an argument stems from. >which is ironic considering feminism is created for the equality of both men and women Pro seems to be confused here. Are feminists people who want equality of men and women, or man-haters? This stems from Pro's idiotic assumptions which esesntially require the reader to assume his priors before agreeing. Nonsense. >An example of this, is men dying in wars and in the wilderness. this sucks, yeah, but this in no way is contributory to the subject of the debate >Most feminists don't want to admit that both men and women both suffer whether it maybe present or in the past blanket statements such as this require evidence without which we can ignore them >3. Women who call themselves feminist barely do anything besides constant whining. If they really do care about other women they would be fighting for other women's rights in third world countries. It's almost like people can both care about civil rights in first world countries and third world ones. This is another nonsensical blanket statement with no evidence present. >4. All feminists blame the plight of women solely on men (aka "the patriarchy") this betrays an incredibly weak understanding of feminist theory, which I would get into if Pro hadn't dumped a huge amount of, frankly, moronic arguments on me for me to rebut. The point here being that those who identify as feminist contend that economic and social issues are due at least in some part to historical oppression of women carried forward into the present day. Further, yet another blanket statement. >5. When you argue with a feminist they usually say "you don't know what its like to be a woman" Blanket statement, furthermore I'd contend that the burden of proof is on you - you have categorically failed to fulfil this burden. Idiotic, irrelevant. This, for some reason is a common strand through all your arguments. >6. Patriarchy is nonexistent. If it were to be true, women wouldn't have the ability to vote, drive, study, get jobs, or get abortions. This betrays, again, an unbelievably limited understanding of what the concept of patriarchy actually entails, which is that of historically male dominated society's prejudices being carried forward. Obviously there have been large strides toward sexual equality but it seems illogical to state that it's been eliminated - further, it seems that if men and women are indeed equal there would be roughly the same amount of men and women in high-paying jobs - some discrepancy, furthermore, would be acceptable, but the level we see is illogical and cannot be due only to randomness. >7. All feminists are almost always based on the individual's self-interests and not in actual gender equality. blanket statement >They want men to be subservient to women and use feminism as the way to achieve this goal. both a blanket statement and in no way constitutory of proof that "feminism is stupid" > They want rights handed to them that would no longer benefit men, but do not want to get rid of the "traditional" gender roles that have benefited women. most feminists would tell you that gender roles are bad and should be abolished in their entirety. pro seems to have an understanding of feminism as either the idiotic extremes of college campuses or the strawman pushed by certain outlets >8. The RICH have always held power, not men Flat out wrong. Consider pre-historic times - men were the leaders of tribes simply because they were physically stronger. Being strong isn't capital of any sort, though those who are strong tend to amass capital. 9 has apparently been skipped >10. Feminists are sexist without even realizing it. They victimize women to the point one might think all women are handicapped weak and helpless frail members of society, when they are not. blanket statement, misunderstanding of feminist theory. Weak argument. >11. Feminism has its own agenda of self-interest. Yet another normative statement with no proof. Who's surprised? Not me! >12. If you don't label yourself as such, you're apparently against them. Blanket statement, no proof, no reasoning >Feminism loves to recruit and wage wars more than working towards a common goal. no proof of this claim >13. Most women don't hate men (or see them as intellectual inferior and "not responsible for their own stupidity", or blame them for everything bad that happens to them), thus, couldn't be feminists. Right, that's the fourth straight misconception on the nature of feminism. Let me clear this up. Feminism is: The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.[1] It holds that there exist power structure which are bad for society (and as such both men and women) and as such should not exist. Next round, I'll hold forth on why these power structures do exist and therefore feminism isn't unncessary, >14. Many feminists have double standards beyond just benefits and "privileges" in society. Call men stupid, weak, helpless, fools, and laugh at the idea of their penis getting chopped of by a psycho woman? Its okay to feminists, but don't you dare call a woman stupid, weak, helpless, fools, or laugh at the idea of female mutilation! First, spare me the false outrage. Second, this is yet another un-backed-up blanket statement. You should really get that looked at. >15. Feminism, as evidenced in its name is not about equal treatment towards the sexes and gender equality. guess the dictionary is wrong >Feminism, by definition, is the idea of working on the issues of women in order to gain "gender equality." My word! You've actually gotten something right! Feminism holds that gender roles which have been established by historical society are bad and limiting on both men and women and as such should be abolished. That's pretty much it. In summary, Pro's argument rests upon three things. 1.) Blanket statements about "all feminists" which he then attempts to use to make normative statements on the nature of feminism. These can be disregarded with no proof. 2.) A fundamental misunderstanding of feminism. It's useless to tussle over whether feminism is stupid or not if you don't fundamentally understand it. 3.) A misunderstanding of the current state of society. I'll deal with this next round. Over to Pro. 1.)https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-stupid/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.80

    feminism: 23.80

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.39 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.76)

    sourceText: 2.01 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
• CON

  Inb4 "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the...

  Show full argument

  Feminism! Hooray!

  Well I haven't had a decent debate in a couple months and and figured why not discuss feminism in modern day North America (when I say this I'm referring to Canada & the US of A, sorry Mexifriends). I've been having a lot of "good" back-and-fourths with Stefy about feminism and equality and such in comments and polls and whatever, so if she could accept I'd love it, but if someone else does I'd be just as happy. So as anyone who knows me on this site would already know, I'm against modern feminism in North America. I find it nothing more than an excuse to get women special treatment and put down others in order to make feminists look good. It "unknowingly" fights for female superiority under the guise of "equality." I don't want to get too into this right now so I'll leave the first round for my opponent to open with arguments as to why feminism is or should be necessary in North America. Inb4 "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Therefore feminism is great!!!1!@" - Citing a definition does not mean the movement as a whole is beneficial or not detrimental. Rules Forfeiture of any round will result in a full seven-point loss. I can't make this clear enough, if you want to participate in a debate, please don't go on vacation half way through. If you do have to leave because your neighbour took your sister hostage, please just... deal with that on your own. Five rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 Characters. No semantics. I won't mind if you get emotional and insult me because I stated facts that destroy your argument ;) Come one come all, I don't care how many debates you've completed or not completed, if you bring up good arguments I'm happy! Thanks and good luck!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Hooray/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.79

    feminism: 23.79

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.42 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.77)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  Again, I shall refer my opponent and the audience to my...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is not sexist.

  To begin, my opponent misunderstands the issue that I have with their use of the definition. There is an assumed difference between human rights and women's rights within said definition. It is assumed in the definition that women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them. My opponent presumes that "women's rights" equal "human rights", without an explanation of why we should conclude this. If it is assumed that "women's rights" are "human rights", there is no reason to advocate for women's rights specifically, and thus it necessarily becomes sexist that feminism focuses on women. This argument from my opponent does not refute what I have said; it actually reinforces it. My opponent also, once again, fails to address Sexual and Domestic Violence laws, and wholly misunderstands my position. I have already explained my reasons for connecting these laws to feminism: "The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'..." This is from Round 4. PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights. (See Feminism definition per Round 1) PRO's argument fails to address this. PRO then argues, per Tu Quoque, that I am guilty of the exact same act, of neglecting portions of a definition. However, that is exactly my point. By advocating for women's rights, feminism creates a situation wherein "the equality of the sexes" is not the result; rather, a bias towards women, and against men, is the result. Again, PRO's argument supports my position. PRO seems to be interested in my argument against her analogy, despite my reasoning as to why it is to be viewed as weak. Again, I shall refer my opponent and the audience to my arguments regarding this: ' What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Again, I say that PRO's analogy is weak, as there attributes that Feminism has (mainly activism) that Atheism does not have as part of the ideology. As such, we start in a position where any Argument from Analogy cannot stand. My analogy begins with two ideologies that promote the rights of two groups, that then produce two different results. Then, my opponent critiques my Tax Analogy as "pointless". Simple Rebuttal to a Simple Assertion: No, it isn't. Complex Rebuttal: My analogy is closely related to the current situation with voting rights. Men must sign up for Selective Service (at least in the US) in order to earn the right to vote, effectively paying a higher tax (as to refuse carries harsh consequences), while women simply turn 18 (effectively paying little to no tax). I would argue there is indeed a point, as this actually elucidates the terminology used. I attempted to keep my arguments in this round as close to the arguments that I have already presented as possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I shall now make my Closing Statements. My position was that Feminism is Sexist. In the pursuit of Women's Rights, there are instances of inequality, with a bias towards women, and against men. These biases as evident when one obesrves Sexual Violence, the VAWA and Domestic Violence laws, and Selective Service and Voting. I presented arguments that I believe justify making a connection between Feminism and these laws, which I have mentioned above. Each of these areas have had a plethora of activism in relation to how they affect women. Meaning that these laws have special considerations for women (VAWA, Sexual Violence), or at least do not address women (Selective Service). This leads to a scenario wherein women are advantaged, and men are, by comparison, advantaged. I have provided an analogy that I believe displays this. In my refutations of PRO's arguments, I argued for the weakness of the "Atheism-Feminism" Analogy, pointing out the flaws that are present in the decision to compare the two. I then provided my own analogy, which I view as stronger than the one provided by PRO. In relation to the arguments provided by PRO, I pointed out the flawed reasoning present in PRO's inclination to argue through the secondary clause of the definition provided. I mentioned that to argue that utilizing the clause "equality of the sexes" to attempt to refute my arguments is not a strong form of argumentation, given that the equality of the sexes is simply the grounds which justifies the advocacy of women's rights, it is not that for which feminists advoacate. Given the arguments provided, I believe I have provided strong reasons to believe that Feminism is indeed sexist. My job was to argue against the reolution, to the effect of "Feminism is sexist". PRO was to argue in favor of the resolution, to the effect of "Feminism is not sexist". To the voters, if I have given sound reasons for the sexist nature of Feminism, refuting the resolution, Please vote CON. If PRO has provided arguments to negate mine and affirm the resolution, please vote PRO. My thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-not-sexist./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.78

    feminism: 23.78

    conclusion: 11.41 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 10.35 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.75)

    sourceText: 2.02 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.16)